American Heritage Broward Gupta Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Finals | All | All |
|
| ||
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Loyola Colum Manning | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Lake Highland Prep Arjun Verma | Rohit Lakshman |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Harrison Jessie Pein | Manasi Singh |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Loyola Colum Manning | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - COVID Util AC |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep Arjun Verma | Judge: Rohit Lakshman 1AC - Kant AC |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Opponent: Harrison Jessie Pein | Judge: Manasi Singh 1AC - Women's Health AC |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: All | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All Message me if there is some interp that you would like me to meet pre-round so I can try my best to meet it and if you want me to make any accommodations or give content warnings let me know before the round. Pronouns: He/Him Navigation: | 9/25/21 |
1 - K - AcademyTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harrison Jessie Pein | Judge: Manasi Singh Link 1: The Affirmative critique is assimilated to justify the moral superstructure they criticize.Robinson 12 - Andrew Robinson, Ceasefire, August 24th, 2012 "An A to Z of Theory | Jean Baudrillard: From Revolution to Implosion" ~https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-10/~~ Accessed 3/9/20 SAO Link 2: Images of suffering fuel violenceAlford 20 - Aaron J. Alford, Medium, January 13th, 2020 "Disaster Pornography and the American Media"~https://medium.com/@aaronjalford1/disaster-pornography-and-the-american-media-f01ee1cb4512~~ Accessed 1/30/20 SAO Alternative: Vote negative to inject the affirmative advocacy with a radical loss. It’s try or die for the K under their role of the ballot.Genosko 16 - Gary Genosko, University of Ontario, Lo Sguardo, 8/29/16 "How to Lose to a Chess Playing Computer According to Jean Baudrillard" ~http://www.losguardo.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-23-Genosko.pdf~~ Accessed 9/14/20 SAO | 9/26/21 |
1 - K - UtilTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loyola Colum Manning | Judge: Phoenix Pittman ~1~ Util creates a moral obligation to oppress people, when their suffering would cause a greater amount of happiness for the majority.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to drop the debater, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 9/25/21 |
1 - Theory - Cant Read The Categorical ImperativeTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep Arjun Verma | Judge: Rohit Lakshman A: Interp – Debaters must only read a framework that is not consistency the categorical imperative.B: Violation – You read categorical imperative.C: Standards –1. Inclusion – It’s bad for inclusion:A) it’s ableist.Ryan 11, Intro to ethics @ Birmingham University Phil 140; "Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice"; Jan 17; http://parenethical.com/phil140win11/2011/01/17/group-3-cognitive-disability-misfortune-and-justice-deontology-ryan/ B) It’s homophobic.Alan Soble, American philosopher and author of several books on the philosophy of sex. He taught at the University of New Orleans from 1986 to 2006. He is currently Adjunct Professor of philosophy at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Kant and Sexual Perversion, The Monist 86:1 (Jan. 2003), pp. 55-89, https://philpapers.org/archive/SOBKAS /AHS PB 2. Ground – A) Reciprocal – Deontic frameworks always only flow one side since the author would ultimately decide on one action or another B) Weighing – It’s impossible to weigh under deontic frameworks since there’s no arguments like magnitude, probability, etc C) Topic – All arguments are written in the context of util which means there’s very little ground that is actually topic specific on both sides. Ground controls the internal link to fairness since I can’t make arguments if they just don’t exist. | 9/25/21 |
SO - NC - ContractsTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loyola Colum Manning | Judge: Phoenix Pittman I value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1. Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point.Markovits 14, Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa 2. Motivation – A) Externalist notions of ethics collapse to internal since the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that’s generated from it B) Empirics – there is no factual account of the good since each agents’ motivations are unique and there has been no conversion of differing beliefs into a unified ethic.Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It’s a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good.Gauthier 98, David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Since agents take their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties’ consent to in order to regulate behavior.Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility – Contracts are key to a) Encompassing all other ethical calculus into our decision since we process the consistency of those frameworks with our self interest and b) Value pluralism – recognizing a singular ethic fails to account for the complexity of moral problems and genuine moral disagreement. My framework solves since we can recognize multiple legitimate values while allowing individuals to exclude ones that are bad.2. Bindingness – A) Arising of Ethics – Every interaction with another agent is mediated by consent to participate in that interaction since otherwise agents could simply leave, which means there is an implicit social contract formed in every ethical interaction and B) Culpability – Only contracts can ensure agents are held to their agreements since there is a verifiable basis for judging their action as wrong as well as a pre-established punishment for breaking it.ContentionI contend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.~1~ Stronger IPRs help equalize the bargaining field for developing countries to check western coercion which would diminish their place as world enforcer. Therefore, it’s not in mutual self-interest for them to remove IPs because they want to keep their own economies ahead of others.Hassan et al 10 "Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: A review of the literature: by Emmanuel Hassan, Ohid Yaqub, Stephanie Diepeveen. RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. ~https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical'reports/2010/RAND'TR804.pdf~~ ahs emi ~2~ IP rights are included in multiple international contracts – the aff violates that.Franklin 13 - "International Intellectual Property Law" by Jonathan Franklin* He earned his A.B., A.M. Anthropology and J.D. degrees from Stanford University and M.Libr. with a Certificate in Law Librarianship from the University of Washington. Prior to the University of Washington, he spent five years as an reference librarian and foreign law selector at the University of Michigan Law Library. In law school, he was a Senior Editor of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal and a Note Editor for the Stanford Law Review. He is a member of the American Association of Law Libraries. ~https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG'IP.pdf~~ ahs emi ~3~ Forecloses the ability for future contracts.Hilty et al 21 ~Reto Hilty Director at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and a professor at the University of Zurich Pedro Henrique D. Batista Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Suelen Carls Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Daria Kim Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Matthias Lamping Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Peter R. Slowinski Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition; "10 Arguments against a Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights," Oxford Law; 6/29/21; https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/06/10-arguments-against-waiver-intellectual-property-rights~~ Justin | 9/25/21 |
SO - Topicality - Parametrics BadTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep Arjun Verma | Judge: Rohit Lakshman Interpretation: "medicines" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend that member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for a medicine or subset of medicines.Nebel 19. ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. He writes a lot of this stuff lol – duh.~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO'avWCNzi14 TG Violation: They spec live-saving medicinesStandards:~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits and ground – their model allows affs to defend anything from Covid vaccines to HIV drugs to Insulin— there's no universal DA since each has different functions and political implications — that explodes neg prep and leads to random medicine of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep and it takes out ground like DAs to certain medicines which are some of the few neg generics when affs spec medicines.~3~ TVA solves – you could’ve read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy.Voters:Jurisdiction – their aff but not affirming the resolution, which is a voter since the ballot asks who did the better debating in the context of the res.Accessibility – all of your arguments presuppose people feel save enough in the space to respond to them.No RVIs – a~ illogical – fairness is a burden just like the aff has the burden of inherency b~ norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms c~ chilling effect – debaters are scared to check real abuse which means inf abuse goes unchecked d~ substance crowdout – prevents 1AR blipstorms and allows us to get back to substanceDrop the debater – 1. Deterrence – Prevents reading the abusive practice in the future since it’s not worth risking the loss which is k2 norm setting indefensible practices die out 2. TS – Otherwise you’ll read a bunch of abusive practices for the time trade off 3. Epistemic Skew – The round has already been skewed so it’s impossible to evaluate the rest of the flow 4. Drop the arg is incoherent because it’s their advocacy so they must defend their model.Competing interps: 1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline 2. Necessitates judge intervention to see if we meet th brightline and 3 collapses because we use offense defense paradigm. Drop the debater on theory: 1.. 2. Its key to deterring future abuse1NC Theory o/w – 1. Lexicality – If the neg was abusive it was reactionary to aff abuse which means it’s justified 2. Norm setting – 1ar theory can never set norms since I only get 1 speech so we can’t fully develop the debate 3. Infinite abuse – Otherwise it would justify the aff baiting theory and uplayering and allows them to get away with infinite abuse just by being the better theory debater | 9/25/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/25/21 | prateekg2003@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | prateekg2003@gmailcom |
|